Skip to main content

About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN 7
CNN 4
CNNW 4
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
English 30
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and i think now it would make sense that we have sent troops to deploy nato patriot missiles to defend turkey against syria, they see that as something that goes against their fundamentalist ideological thinking, and as a result of that, the group has been called into action. unfortunately, as small as this group might be, one could anticipate future targets on u.s. interests in turkey should further nay to have or troop and hardware ce employments take place in theing months. -- in the coming months. jenna: what do you think is the correct united states response? >> well, first of all, we have to be very serious. this is an attack on a nato country inside a nato country. turkey's a great ally. they've been a member of nato since 1951, and this is a serious attack. this is the eighth attack on an embassy under hillary clinton alone. so we have to have a tough response. i think that it's also very interesting that these attacks are happening when the u.s. policy in the region is really withdrawn. we are not active in syria. we are doing just little, minor things around the edges, and ye
of the regime of syrian president assad and the timing couldn't be any worse because the first of six nato patriot missile batteries are operational on turkey's border with syria. the missiles, partly run by u.s. troops. could war in syria bring the u.s. and iran interest an all-out war? joining me a former state department senior adviser and principle at d.c. international advisory, great to see you, christian. thanks. we are not mincing words when we say iran has come out strongest yet, even saying to saying to t. people who want to help the thousands who were in camples, who were killed, who were injured and iran is saying, start up with syria -- even try to help -- and you are at war with us. what does that mean? know, iran love this is syrian regime. it's so important to iran because iran uses syria to control what it considers to be its near abroad, export terrorism, to strike against not just israel, but other western interests, including the u.s. and citizens in places like lebanon, to have its tentacles deep into gaza. it's important for iran. it's doubling down on that. also, you
to intervene. >> retired general wesley clark is the former nato commander, retired air force colonel cedric layton is a former intelligence of a certificate. general clark, let me start with you. barbara starr just reported the algerian government has not been continuing, the cia has tried to piece this together themselves. this makes it very complicated and much more difficult. but only now, more than a week later, the u.s. government is connecting the dots which at least from when we talked to omar on the day of the attack seemed to be perhaps visible very early on. what is causing the delay? >> i would suspect the algerian government's quite embarrassed by the poor results. they've been criticized roundly by other western countries for not running a very effective operation. had a lot of people killed in the operation. it's not the way it's done. they pushed it up, they accelerated it, they simply don't have the sophisticated special ops capabilities for hostage rescue capabilities that western countries have. but eventually, i'm convinced, they will share information. we're going to fin
and thinking about syria, think about the nato patriot missiles that are now there. he's going to be thinking about what the diplomatic and assistance side is of what is going on in mali which he will know quite well because the u.s. has been trying to support the emergence of a democratic government there for well over a decade. so those two crises are both great examples of where, as senator kerry, he traveled the world. he met with leaders. so the challenge that he has is to go from being someone who's able to drop in and then follow in an oversight role to being the person who really has to make the decisions and who has to say, you know, if mali is a priority, egypt is a priority, turkey is a priority, the conflict between china, japan, and south korea is a worry, the worry about a north korean nuclear test is a priority. we could go on and on. a secretary of state's job really is to keep all those balls in the air so, frankly, we're on tv talking about them as little as possible. >> right. you know, michael, the other thing that strikes me that now-secretary kerry is going to have to de
closely, closely with our lo longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and p t partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we will continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as recognition the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asian pacific power it is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engage d in the region ove the incoming years. doing all this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i share leon panetta's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. and as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed, i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer dollar the right way to maintain the st
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
chiefly the u.n., the imf the world bank and nato that protected our interests, defending universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions combat setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. we see more passed power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their military and political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that defy unilateral solutions. as president obama's said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. said the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we as
including working at the n.s.c. on detail, at nato headquarters, brought at the middle east and the pentagon. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
the french from being able to come into a country. they need to be able to stop nato from coming into countries on the continent. europe would not allow other foreigners to do this in europe. why would the africans allow this? they should not allow foreigners who colonized the bus and insulate us in the past to do this. these are our enemies. what is the true motive of the french for coming into mali? it is certainly not because they care. they are former colonial masters, people that enslaved us. these are our enemies. what is the reason they have come? certainly not because they care. guest: i think we are in agreement that most people -- the u.s. administration, the state department has noted in a statement that general ham said earlier also, everybody would like this to be an african-led solution. it's the only way to go ahead. unfortunately, although many of the african countries talk a great deal about getting involved, with the exception of a few. niger, i mentioned earlier. morocco has been leading on this, raising awareness on this issue for some time. mali, a year-and-a
this rebalancing even as we continue to work closely, closely with our longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends of other regions of the world. at the same time, we will continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where were have clear national interests. rather, it's a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. and the asia-pacific is vital to america's interests. doing all of this, and much more, will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear, i share leon panetta's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. and as someone who has run businesses i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources in our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer's dollar the right way. to maintenance the strongest military in the world and to working with congress to ensure the dep
-time allies of nato, and our friend, and with allies and partners and friends in other raoegs of th region -gs of the world. at the same time we will focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. it's a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asian make of area, it's increasingly vital to america's security and economic interest, that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the coming years. doing all this and much more will require smart and stra taoepblg is budget decisions. i have made it clear i share pan pan's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently, using every single taxpayers' dollar the right way to maintain the strongest military in the world, and to workin
longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we'll continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asia pacific area is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the incoming years. during all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i'm sure leon panetta and the concerns of the impact just ration will have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayers' dollars the right way, to maintain the strongest military in the world and to working with congres
. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways. people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about li
allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we'll continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asia pacific area is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the incoming years. during all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i'm sure leon panetta and the concerns of the impact just ration will have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayers' dollars the right way, to maintain the strongest military in the world and to working with congress to ensure t
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)